Some hot Sen. Warren on Wells Fargo CEO action...

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,578
1,622
136
I think I need a cigarette after watching this. She really ripped into his ass, that's for sure. Too bad conservatives don't have someone like her on their side so they could team up (you know, like the parties used to?) and go to town on the rest of the banksters.

We need more Senators like her.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I think I need a cigarette after watching this. She really ripped into his ass, that's for sure. Too bad conservatives don't have someone like her on their side so they could team up (you know, like the parties used to?) and go to town on the rest of the banksters.

We need more Senators like her.
Too many Senators from both sides of the aisle are in the pocket of said banksters or corporate interests. Warren is a fiery speaker but I find her tenacity in this area falls on deaf ears
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Ehhh... I personally find her a bit over the top and inflammatory. I think she's a bit too much about sound bites and fanning the flames of outrage than coming up with actual, practical solutions. Like most people in Congress, really.

In that clip she basically excuses the actions of the lower-level employees completely, and stating that the CEO should be criminally investigated is a bit much (in this particular case).
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
Ehhh... I personally find her a bit over the top and inflammatory. I think she's a bit too much about sound bites and fanning the flames of outrage than coming up with actual, practical solutions. Like most people in Congress, really.

In that clip she basically excuses the actions of the lower-level employees completely, and stating that the CEO should be criminally investigated is a bit much (in this particular case).

I can't view the video right now, but reading a little about this story, it sounds like the scandal was widespread and not just a couple of small managers doing it to pocket a little extra. It sounds like deliberate fraud of both their customers and the government. I'm not a fan of Warren either and I haven't heard her say anything with more substance than Sanders, but actions like this should be criminal.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Ehhh... I personally find her a bit over the top and inflammatory. I think she's a bit too much about sound bites and fanning the flames of outrage than coming up with actual, practical solutions. Like most people in Congress, really.

In that clip she basically excuses the actions of the lower-level employees completely, and stating that the CEO should be criminally investigated is a bit much (in this particular case).
Then how do you feel about the CFPB and the bank lobby fighting tooth and nail to kill (or at least neuter) it? She has probably done more to protect consumers than the vast majority of gassbags in congress.

Imho, Warren focusing on the top level employees responsible for the policies that allowed for and encouraged the fraud to occur is the right thing to do. Low level employees are shafted and scapegoated all the time. The buck does not stop at the low levels.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,917
35,436
136
Warren laying down the smack, love it.

Ehhh... I personally find her a bit over the top and inflammatory. I think she's a bit too much about sound bites and fanning the flames of outrage than coming up with actual, practical solutions. Like most people in Congress, really.

I find that borderline comical, particularly in the day and age of reality TV stars running for PoTUS.

Shit, I wish most of Congress was like her. She's one of the few good ones, precisely why her solutions (http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/sequester?source=20130502em#.UYxgMILR3n4, for example) and scrutiny are so hated by the elements of Wall Street that hold the most power in D.C. I realize it's subjective though; in her case, what you probably call inflammatory I probably call an incredulous reaction to clear conflicts of interest and/or outright crime.

Could you give me an example of her being over the top or inflammatory? I'm worried that's code for 'not being afraid to ask anyone anything,' which certainly applies to Warren. She went to D.C and kept her spine. That usually doesn't happen.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,451
15,661
136
Then how do you feel about the CFPB and the bank lobby fighting tooth and nail to kill (or at least neuter) it? She has probably done more to protect consumers than the vast majority of gassbags in congress.

Imho, Warren focusing on the top level employees responsible for the policies that allowed for and encouraged the fraud to occur is the right thing to do. Low level employees are shafted and scapegoated all the time. The buck does not stop at the low levels.

Balt the top guys set the goals to get paid or keep your job

*20 year sales guy/sales manager*
 
  • Like
Reactions: MovingTarget

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Ehhh... I personally find her a bit over the top and inflammatory. I think she's a bit too much about sound bites and fanning the flames of outrage than coming up with actual, practical solutions. Like most people in Congress, really.

In that clip she basically excuses the actions of the lower-level employees completely, and stating that the CEO should be criminally investigated is a bit much (in this particular case).


the guy ran a scam and you think its a bit much to criminally investigate him? really?
 

SketchMaster

Diamond Member
Feb 23, 2005
3,100
149
116
My respect for her just went up quite a few pegs, that was outstanding work she did there. Every time he tried to spin she would shut him down and pile more evidence on top of him, even using his own words against him.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Then how do you feel about the CFPB and the bank lobby fighting tooth and nail to kill (or at least neuter) it? She has probably done more to protect consumers than the vast majority of gassbags in congress.

Imho, Warren focusing on the top level employees responsible for the policies that allowed for and encouraged the fraud to occur is the right thing to do. Low level employees are shafted and scapegoated all the time. The buck does not stop at the low levels.

If there was any doubt that the big guys get off too easy, I think the financial crisis removed it. I can't dispute that.

However, there is a difference between negligence and actively promoting fraud, IMO. Clearly there was too much pressure on getting employees to sign up customers for new accounts, and clearly there was not enough oversight to ensure the customers actually requested those accounts. Personally, however, I just don't buy that the CEO of the company was encouraging subordinates (upper, mid, or lower level) to actively commit fraud. Even if his only motivation was self-interest, I can't see someone at the very top engaging in a scheme that was almost surely going to be uncovered eventually.

But hey, if it takes a criminal investigation into him personally to sort that all out, then so be it. I just don't like the grandstanding from both Republicans or Democrats during these kinds of hearings.

I'm still not willing to call the lower-level employees victims, though, as Warren does. They knew their actions were fraudulent and criminal. I sympathize with the pressure they were under, but that doesn't justify breaking the law.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
And this why the 1% donors wanted one of their own as Hillary's VP nominee and weren't afraid to tell her that Warren was a no go.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/wall-street-to-clinton-warren-is-not-an-option.html

NEW YORK — Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,578
1,622
136
If there was any doubt that the big guys get off too easy, I think the financial crisis removed it. I can't dispute that.

However, there is a difference between negligence and actively promoting fraud, IMO. Clearly there was too much pressure on getting employees to sign up customers for new accounts, and clearly there was not enough oversight to ensure the customers actually requested those accounts. Personally, however, I just don't buy that the CEO of the company was encouraging subordinates (upper, mid, or lower level) to actively commit fraud. Even if his only motivation was self-interest, I can't see someone at the very top engaging in a scheme that was almost surely going to be uncovered eventually.

But hey, if it takes a criminal investigation into him personally to sort that all out, then so be it. I just don't like the grandstanding from both Republicans or Democrats during these kinds of hearings.

I'm still not willing to call the lower-level employees victims, though, as Warren does. They knew their actions were fraudulent and criminal. I sympathize with the pressure they were under, but that doesn't justify breaking the law.

Did you watch the video? When the CEO tried to deflect to the lower level employees Warren wasn't having any of it, pointing out that those employees don't have lawyers and a PR firm out there defending them. She wanted to know if the CEO or any other executives gave back any of the bonus money they made. Bonus money they reaped on the very crimes that were committed. Nope, not a penny. Just fvck up, point at the lower employees (again), walk away with the gains and go back to business as usual after paying a fine.

The CEO wants the buck to stop with lower level employees while they rake in the real bucks with no threat of personal consequences for themselves.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
And this why the 1% donors wanted one of their own as Hillary's VP nominee and weren't afraid to tell her that Warren was a no go.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/wall-street-to-clinton-warren-is-not-an-option.html

Even if Wall Street loved Warren, she would have still been a "no go" for the VP because it would have cost the Dems a seat in the Senate and MA is already a safe blue state.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
Ehhh... I personally find her a bit over the top and inflammatory. I think she's a bit too much about sound bites and fanning the flames of outrage than coming up with actual, practical solutions. Like most people in Congress, really.

In that clip she basically excuses the actions of the lower-level employees completely, and stating that the CEO should be criminally investigated is a bit much (in this particular case).
So 5300 employees decided on their own to execute the same type of fraud on their customers? Policy comes from the top but only the lower level employees paid a price.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,023
5,305
136
the guy ran a scam and you think its a bit much to criminally investigate him? really?
Well said! Good to see there's topics that mostly everyone can agree on. The low level employees get shafted all the fucking time. And the upper echelon folk usually get off with a slap on the wrist if that.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,451
15,661
136
HAHA!

Warren "Have you returned one dime of the money you earned thru this fraud"

CEO "The board will"

Warren "Have you returned one dime of the money you earned thru this fraud"

CEO "The board will..."

Warren "I'll take it you haven't returned any money"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheik Yerbouti
Feb 16, 2005
14,023
5,305
136
HAHA!

Warren "Have you returned one dime of the money you earned thru this fraud"

CEO "The board will"

Warren "Have you returned one dime of the money you earned thru this fraud"

CEO "The board will..."

Warren "I'll take it you haven't returned any money"

I almost started feeling sorry for the exec, almost. goddamn, I haven't seen a beating like that in a while. Good to see the fire's still burning in some elected officials.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,716
7,811
136
He doesn't give a damn what she thinks or says. He will make more money this quarter than she will make in a life time. Just an annoying insect buzzing around.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
He doesn't give a damn what she thinks or says. He will make more money this quarter than she will make in a life time. Just an annoying insect buzzing around.

He cares but not in the way you think. She's useful in defusing the anger away about this. Warren gives him a few minutes of verbal abuse, the leftist proles cheer like he's actually been punished somehow and he goes back to life as before pretending to be chastened, "oh Ole Elizabeth got me good." The WF board makes appropriate tuttering noises of disapproval and then give him a few more million stock options in 2 months when this is ancient history.